linux-kernel - Re: [Lhms-devel] [Patch] 3/5 in support of hot-add memory x86_64 arch_find_node x86

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 31 Jul 2006 10:57:44 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
To:	Yasunori Goto <y-goto@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	kmannth@...ibm.com, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	andrew <akpm@...l.org>, discuss <discuss@...-64.org>,
	dave hansen <haveblue@...ibm.com>, konrad <darnok@...ibm.com>,
	lhms-devel <lhms-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	kame <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [Lhms-devel] [Patch] 3/5 in support of hot-add memory x86_64 arch_find_node	x86_64

 
> I know it is defined in x86-64. But I mean that SRAT is not
> arch dependent. It is defined by just ACPI.
> However, each arch which uses ACPI has a own code to parse SRAT table.
> Is it hard to merge all of them? Are there any special case?

Node setup is architecture specific and quite different between x86-64
and ia64. I guess one could factor out some common sanity code though, but I'm 
not sure it is worth it. Iirc ia64 doesn't do much sanity checking because
they assume the firmware was written by sane people; x86-64 doesn't have
that luxury.

-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/